Opinion For love or money
EC is concerned about parties buying influence on social media. But it should be wary of blunt solutions.
EC is concerned about parties buying influence on social media. But it should be wary of blunt solutions.
This Lok Sabha election has been pitched as the first in which social media will make a significant difference, with studies saying that social media interventions could potentially tip results in several urban constituencies. While much of this is hype, it is also undeniable that ideas expressed on Facebook and Twitter can ripple outwards to greater effect.
The use of these digital tools is only likely to increase and evolve. While the BJP and AAP have been early adopters, most parties have now actively embraced the possibilities of the medium to put out information, showcase leaders, puncture damaging claims, shape the discourse and get out the vote. Even the CPM has an active Twitter presence, and Mamata Banerjee has ordered her party’s leaders to engage in daily social media interactions.
The Election Commission now worries that a surreptitious shadow battle is being fought online, as parties throw big money at click farms and online volunteers, moulding public opinion without disclosing their agendas.
In other words, there is a lot of political information out there, with nothing in the fine print informing you about the motives or interests of those putting it out. Parties and their PR agencies manipulate social media, and their needs align perfectly with the incentives of platforms like YouTube and Facebook that seek shared content and user interaction.
The EC’s concern is understandable. Just as it regulates political advertising in traditional media, like print, radio and TV, to ensure a level field for all parties, it wants to extend its oversight to the online sphere. But this is an uphill challenge, and one that the commission should be cautious of venturing into. In the US, the Federal Election Commission continues to treat social media as a separate realm, only regulating online ads and messages that appear on the sites of political organisations.
This is a matter of practicality rather than principle. It is hard to separate messaging or endorsements that are bought by parties from a believer’s sincere attempts to influence others, or even spontaneous expression of a political thought. While those who attempt to buy advertising on Facebook, Twitter etc, should be asked to disclose their activity, these rules are not easy to apply to a personal blog, for example. What’s more, it is difficult to tell the difference between a paid campaign and the activism of an ardent supporter without serious costs in privacy terms.
The EC has indicated that it will consult the ministry of communications and IT to figure out ways to identify hired campaigners, but it should be wary of inhibiting political expression and persuasion, which is a citizen’s democratic right.
Share
